After 9-0 SCOTUS rejection, Democrats devise Putinesque new plan to keep Trump off the ballot

[Curried Goats]

And I believe 9-0 said states have no business bringing federal charges.

Wrong you dipshit. The States weren't bringing federal charges. Colorado started from a lawsuit to disqualify Trump filed by other Republicans. Criminal charges weren't ever involved.

Hearsay charges aren't constitutional. Indictments and due process are.

Due process doesn't just exist in criminal court, Moron. Due process simply describes the protecting of your rights throughout whatever legal process you're going through be it criminal or civil or a lawsuit challenging whether you qualify for ballot access. Trumps due process was upheld by him being afforded the opportunity to respond to the challenge of his qualifications through a judicial hearing, which he got.

 

[WEATHER53]

Wrong you dipshit. The States weren't bringing federal charges. Colorado started from a lawsuit to disqualify Trump filed by other Republicans. Criminal charges weren't ever involved.

Due process doesn't just exist in criminal court, Moron. Due process simply describes the protecting of your rights throughout whatever legal process you're going through be it criminal or civil or a lawsuit challenging whether you qualify for ballot access. Trumps due process was upheld by him being afforded the opportunity to respond to the challenge of his qualifications through a judicial hearing, which he got.

This is liberal commie crap
That Republicans drove the effort to keep Trump off the ballot is utter bullshit

 

[Delldude]

The guidelines for objecting are part of federal law, not the constitution.

You better check the 12 amendment.

It’s hypocritical for a conservative to be attacking Raskin for wanting to set up a procedure to enforce the 14th amendment, which has been done for and consistent with guidelines from the constitution.

I'd say it's even more hypocritical for Raskin and his colleagues, after a SCOTUS ruling, attempting to an after the fact move based upon unproven actions some 3 1/2 years prior.

This is how f**ked up the democrats have become.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That they wanted Pence to introduce the alternate slates of electors,

the alternate slates of electors were fraud. the people who signed them we’re committing election fraud because what they signed was not true.

Had Mike Pence excepted the fraudulent certificates of electors, would’ve been committing a crime just like the top of the ticket was doing

 

[marvin martian]

Wrong you dipshit. The States weren't bringing federal charges. Colorado started from a lawsuit to disqualify Trump filed by other Republicans. Criminal charges weren't ever involved.

Yet your dumb ass is still shucking and jiving about the SCOTUS not clearing Trump of "insurrection", an obvious criminal charge. This is what happens when you combine your low, low IQ with a steady diet of DNC propaganda...you look even dumber than usual, boy (and that's no easy feat).

 

[WEATHER53]

I will ask pointedly
What does 9-0 tell you about states being able to keep Trump off state ballots
Do you feel other states have a “right” to try?
Let the but….but…buts roll!

 

[Delldude]

The States weren't bringing federal charges.

So a state judge claims He's guilty of insurrection, in a civil trial, which is a federal charge, and you think it sticks?

Trumps due process was upheld by him being afforded the opportunity to respond to the challenge of his qualifications through a judicial hearing, which he got.

And SCOTUS slapped down, appropriately.

Colorado started from a lawsuit to disqualify Trump filed by other Republicans.

That's a good one.......you think those republicans sent Trump a Christmas card every year?

Criminal charges weren't ever involved.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Marener]

You better check the 12 amendment.

I did. It’s not in there. Objections are codified in the federal statute, first the electoral count act of 1887 which was recently updated.

I'd say it's even more hypocritical for Raskin and his colleagues, after a SCOTUS ruling, attempting to an after the fact move based upon unproven actions some 3 1/2 years prior.

This is how f**ked up the democrats have become.

What rush? You don’t even know what he’s proposing?

 

[Nostra]

It has been by multiple State courts.

Lacking a criminal charge isn't the same as arguing no legal body has determined whether Jan 6th was an insurrection and whether Trump engaged in it because several have.

Those courts have no power to do that, as the SC unanimously ruled, Moron.

You have nothing but whining and crying.

 

[Delldude]

It’s not in there.

The procedure sure as hell is.

You don’t even know what he’s proposing?

Working feverishly to stop Trump from being sworn in if He wins in November? What else do you need?

 

[Marener]

The procedure sure as hell is.

Not for objections. That’s in 3 USC 15.

Working feverishly to stop Trump from being sworn in if He wins in November? What else do you need?

Precisely what Republicans in Congress did to Biden after he won in November. I need nothing more to know that this is hypocrisy.

 

[Curried Goats]

This is liberal commie crap
That Republicans drove the effort to keep Trump off the ballot is utter bullshit

No, you're just the typical uniformed MAGAt full of unearned confidence.

Trump v. Anderson - Wikipedia


In August 2023, conservative legal scholars and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, in an article to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, posited that Trump is ineligible to be president....

On September 6, 2023, six voters filed a lawsuit in Colorado state district court invoking the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The petitioners included four Republican voters (including former state Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, the titular plaintiff, and former U.S. Representative Claudine Schneider[12]) and two unaffiliated voters.

 

[para bellum]

The loons are trying to claim the SCOTUS decision makes Section 3 unenforceable without congressional action. That is plainly false. The Court said Congress has "long given effect to Section 3", and cited the relevant laws, the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Confiscation Act of 1862.

When USC Title 18 was adopted in 1948, the insurgency and rebellion provisions in the prior laws became18 USC 2383, which the court called "a successor to those provisions".

The Enforcement Act of 1870 was essentially a voting rights act, and it was not just repealed- all the provisions in that law were replaced with new Title 18 and Title 52 codification, depending on whether it's in the voting section or the criminal section.

The only part of the Enforcement Act that was not kept, was the practice of using writs of quo warranto to remove someone from office who was disqualified under Section 3, and making it a misdemeanor to hold office if you were disqualified.

Raskin may try to resurrect quo warranto, but that still has to be ordered by a Federal judge, and is subject to appeal, etc.

Insurrection still has to be proven in order to disqualify someone.

The definition of insurrection (unchanged since 1807):

Insurrections and rebellions consisted of either uprising and threatening the government of a state, leading the state’s legislature to petition for federal intervention, or opposing or obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States “by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.”

In either case, the President must make a proclamation ordering a cessation of the uprising and “it is only after disobedience to that proclamation” that it can duly be considered insurrection or rebellion.

It's pretty obvious the J6 riot was not an insurrection.

RIP Insurrection, you were fun while you lasted, lol...

 

[excalibur]

the alternate slates of electors were fraud. the people who signed them we’re committing election fraud because what they signed was not true.

Had Mike Pence excepted the fraudulent certificates of electors, would’ve been committing a crime just like the top of the ticket was doing

Nope. There is no such thing as 'fake electors'. That is for both Houses to decide on which slate they should approve.

 

[Delldude]

Not for objections. That’s in 3 USC 15.

Precisely what Republicans in Congress did to Biden after he won in November. I need nothing more to know that this is hypocrisy.

No chance dems tried the same thing, though.

 

[Marener]

No chance dems tried the same thing, though.

Which has nothing to do with the hypocrisy we are seeing in this thread.

 

[konradv]

It doesn't sound like the DemoKKKrats are very confident in Poor Memory's ability to win this one without a whole lot of election interference...LOL

That’s what SCOTUS said they were supposed to do. What’s MAGA’s problem now? Is it some sort of secret that Democrats and many “RINOS” want Trump out?

 

[Delldude]

Which has nothing to do with the hypocrisy we are seeing in this thread.

Same hypocrisy, dude..............OMG..............it's only hypocritical when conservatives do it.

Thanks for straightening me out.

 

[Marener]

Same hypocrisy, dude..............OMG..............it's only hypocritical when conservatives do it.

Thanks for straightening me out.

Where’s my hypocrisy? I had no problem with Republicans challenging the elector votes in 2016.

I knew they were going to lose those challenges but were legally entitled to do so.

Everyone knew they were going to lose those challenges, including Trump and his lawyers.

 

[Delldude]

Where’s my hypocrisy?

You didn't want to hear it when it was pointed out the same thing has happened with 'another' party.